With a name like Boris

The forum for general posting. Come join the madness. :)
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17020
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: With a name like Boris

#151 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:50 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret, not allowing any republicans to even attend these 'hearings', have nobody to cross examine these 'witnesses', accord no due process, and then leak out only information that supports their predetermined outcome? All orchestrated by a man who was caught red-handed lying about what happened on the phone call in question? Who also lied about never having any contact with the 'whistleblower'? Who also lied about having 'incontrovertible' evidence that trump colluded with the russians? And that this whole thing emerged out of the swamp almost immediately after the Mueller fiasco didn't work out? There seem to be a lot of credibility issues here.

Even if it is true the administration withheld aid to pressure ukraine to investigate the bidens, (there are many other valid reasons to have done so) does it not even bother you that biden's son got a lot of money to sit on the board of a company for which, even he admits, he had absolutely no qualifications? Why? The only logical reason was to peddle influence. What other reason? And they keep saying there was no wrong doing here. Who says this? It looks like, acts like and smells like a bribe. How and by whom was it 'debunked'?
There are a lot of questions the impeachers need to answer.

Just observations from somebody with a different perspective.
Even for you Flock, this post has more untruths and bits of faulty reasoning than usual. Republicans have been at the meetings; I guess you listen to too much Hannity to know what's really going on. Closed door does not mean secret or confidential. They do have a way to handle any confidential material that comes up (that's the purpose of that closed off room that the Republican party crashers entered with their cell phones). The Republicans are perfectly free to release whatever information they want. The fact they haven't done so might just indicate how weak their case is. This affair "emerged out of the swamp" because Trump decided to get involved after the new president of the Ukraine was elected this spring. I guess Mueller and the Democrats must have rigged those election dates.

The fact that Biden's son got a cushy position presumably because his name was Biden is disturbing only as it fits in with a general pattern or practice of that going on in politics. The Trump children have cashed in plenty on their name as well; I don't hear you moaning about them. The problem is that Trump wasn't concerned about cleaning up corruption in the Ukraine in general; he was concerned about one specific instance of "corruption," that of the Bidens. This was debunked by the Ukrainians themselves in their internal investigations of what took place in their own country.

You're right about one thing. You do have a different perspective from those like Bob###, Jarnon and me. Our perspective is the real world. Yours is the non-existent-conspiracy-laced right wing noise machine that conveniently dismisses everything it doesn't like as fake news.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#152 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:55 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret, not allowing any republicans to even attend these 'hearings', have nobody to cross examine these 'witnesses', accord no due process, and then leak out only information that supports their predetermined outcome? All orchestrated by a man who was caught red-handed lying about what happened on the phone call in question? Who also lied about never having any contact with the 'whistleblower'? Who also lied about having 'incontrovertible' evidence that trump colluded with the russians? And that this whole thing emerged out of the swamp almost immediately after the Mueller fiasco didn't work out? There seem to be a lot of credibility issues here.

Even if it is true the administration withheld aid to pressure ukraine to investigate the bidens, (there are many other valid reasons to have done so) does it not even bother you that biden's son got a lot of money to sit on the board of a company for which, even he admits, he had absolutely no qualifications? Why? The only logical reason was to peddle influence. What other reason? And they keep saying there was no wrong doing here. Who says this? It looks like, acts like and smells like a bribe. How and by whom was it 'debunked'?
There are a lot of questions the impeachers need to answer.

Just observations from somebody with a different perspective.
Even for you Flock, this post has more untruths and bits of faulty reasoning than usual. Republicans have been at the meetings; I guess you listen to too much Hannity to know what's really going on. Closed door does not mean secret or confidential. They do have a way to handle any confidential material that comes up (that's the purpose of that closed off room that the Republican party crashers entered with their cell phones). The Republicans are perfectly free to release whatever information they want. The fact they haven't done so might just indicate how weak their case is. This affair "emerged out of the swamp" because Trump decided to get involved after the new president of the Ukraine was elected this spring. I guess Mueller and the Democrats must have rigged those election dates.

The fact that Biden's son got a cushy position presumably because his name was Biden is disturbing only as it fits in with a general pattern or practice of that going on in politics. The Trump children have cashed in plenty on their name as well; I don't hear you moaning about them. The problem is that Trump wasn't concerned about cleaning up corruption in the Ukraine in general; he was concerned about one specific instance of "corruption," that of the Bidens. This was debunked by the Ukrainians themselves in their internal investigations of what took place in their own country.

You're right about one thing. You do have a different perspective from those like Bob###, Jarnon and me. Our perspective is the real world. Yours is the non-existent-conspiracy-laced right wing noise machine that conveniently dismisses everything it doesn't like as fake news.
Oh well. He woke up. You're late, troll. Two responses from normal people before you got your troll in.

Did Schiff lie about the contents and tone of the phone call? Did he lie about having evidence of collusion? Did he lie about contact with the whistleblower?
Yes, yes and yes, unless you can dispute it with FACTS, SSS, instead of your usual vitriol.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18811
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: With a name like Boris

#153 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:11 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret . . . .
Does it bother you that the defense never gets to examine witnesses at grand jury proceedings and never gets to be present while the police are investigating a crime? Jarnon has responded to the rest. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: With a name like Boris

#154 Post by BackInTex » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:20 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret . . . .
Does it bother you that the defense never gets to examine witnesses at grand jury proceedings and never gets to be present while the police are investigating a crime? Jarnon has responded to the rest. --Bob
Apples / oranges.

This is like preventing the police IAD from having any oversight of an investigation or the investigators.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17020
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: With a name like Boris

#155 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:37 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Did Schiff lie about the contents and tone of the phone call? Did he lie about having evidence of collusion? Did he lie about contact with the whistleblower?
Yes, yes and yes, unless you can dispute it with FACTS, SSS, instead of your usual vitriol.
No, No, and No.

Schiff's comments about the phone call were exaggerated intentionally and would be taken by anyone reasonable as an attempt at parody (using gangster language). Schiff may not be a very good comic, but it was pretty clear that wasn't intended to be a verbatim depiction of the call. It's amazing how you are always willing to dismiss Trump's indefensible comments as jokes but hold Schiff's feet to the fire.

As for evidence of collusion, it's there. It's been brought out over and over again about the Trump team's attempts to set up back channel communications with the Russians and even Trump publicly making comments about Wikileaks, and the evidence of Russian tampering is very evident. You are confusing evidence with proof to whatever legal standard is required in a particular case. Whether there is or is not sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction or a successful impeachment is a matter of opinion about which people may differ. But there's no question the evidence is there. This is only about the 1,000th time on this Bored you've displayed a convenient ignorance of the meaning of legal terms.

As far as Schiff's comments about the whistleblower, it's more a matter of being unclear what his statement of "not spoken directly" with the whistleblower. This FactCheck sums it up:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schif ... r-contact/

I eagerly await the day you try to defend all the lies that come from Trump and his chorus of enablers. They number in the thousands by now.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#156 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:24 am

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Did Schiff lie about the contents and tone of the phone call? Did he lie about having evidence of collusion? Did he lie about contact with the whistleblower?
Yes, yes and yes, unless you can dispute it with FACTS, SSS, instead of your usual vitriol.
No, No, and No.

Schiff's comments about the phone call were exaggerated intentionally and would be taken by anyone reasonable as an attempt at parody (using gangster language). Schiff may not be a very good comic, but it was pretty clear that wasn't intended to be a verbatim depiction of the call. It's amazing how you are always willing to dismiss Trump's indefensible comments as jokes but hold Schiff's feet to the fire.

As for evidence of collusion, it's there. It's been brought out over and over again about the Trump team's attempts to set up back channel communications with the Russians and even Trump publicly making comments about Wikileaks, and the evidence of Russian tampering is very evident. You are confusing evidence with proof to whatever legal standard is required in a particular case. Whether there is or is not sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction or a successful impeachment is a matter of opinion about which people may differ. But there's no question the evidence is there. This is only about the 1,000th time on this Bored you've displayed a convenient ignorance of the meaning of legal terms.

As far as Schiff's comments about the whistleblower, it's more a matter of being unclear what his statement of "not spoken directly" with the whistleblower. This FactCheck sums it up:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schif ... r-contact/

I eagerly await the day you try to defend all the lies that come from Trump and his chorus of enablers. They number in the thousands by now.
Talk about being predictable. We are not talking about trump. There's a big thread I started for that. We are talking about Schiff. You are vying to take the weaseling award away from bob.

1. The actual transcript of the phone call blew Schiff right out of the water. He thought he could get away with it. Is your TDS so bad you can't see that? It wasn't even an accurate parody.
2. If he had actual evidence, he would have used it by now. Give me a break. He lied. And yes, there are a lot of questions about the 'evidence'. Just not inside your echo chamber.
3. I guess it's whatever your definition of is is.

When the democrats actually state what the 'crime' is that they are basing their impeachment on, I will take it seriously. They have been looking so hard for one. But they have gone from one thing to another starting on the day trump was elected and have yet to settle on anything. Can anyone be blamed for deducing it is political? All the evidence points to that.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#157 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:34 am

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Does it not bother you that they are doing this in secret . . . .
Does it bother you that the defense never gets to examine witnesses at grand jury proceedings and never gets to be present while the police are investigating a crime? Jarnon has responded to the rest. --Bob
And yet you still think the mueller report has merit. Everything in it is one-sided, presented with the sole purpose of trying to find some wrong-doing, which is what prosecutors are supposed to do. No witnesses or testimony to rebut the evidence they gathered. And in the end, they decided NOT to prosecute anything, but they released one sided evidence they had gathered. That would have been that, but the dems insisted it be released to the public, and it was. So all the evidence that made trump's campaign look bad is in the public record now, and no trial will be held to refute these one sided charges.
That worked out as well as can be hoped, based on the fact there WAS no crime. So let's do it again. Put Schiff in charge. He has no problem lying through his teeth.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17020
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: With a name like Boris

#158 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:09 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. The actual transcript of the phone call blew Schiff right out of the water. He thought he could get away with it. Is your TDS so bad you can't see that? It wasn't even an accurate parody.
You have no idea what parody is. By its very nature, it's not accurate. Weird Al Yankovic does not sing covers of famous songs. He changes the lyrics for comic effect.

Schiff never claimed he was giving an accurate rendition of what was said. He prefaced his remarks by saying: "It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates." What he says is full of deliberate exaggeration as when he has Trump say: "And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good." Then he finishes by saying: "This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office."

Only someone as bereft of common sense and full of the Trump Koolaid as you and your fellow enablers would think that Schiff was attempting was an accurate rendition of the transcript (which by the way no one in public has ever actually heard yet). The crime is pretty clear, using the power of the Presidency to extort favors from a foreign country for personal gain. And with each witness it's becoming increasingly clear. Trump has no defense, so he and his followers rely on attacking Schiff, attacking the process (which was put into effect by the Republicans in 2015), and even attacking the patriotism of a decorated war veteran.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18811
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: With a name like Boris

#159 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 12:56 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Did Schiff lie about the contents and tone of the phone call? Did he lie about having evidence of collusion? Did he lie about contact with the whistleblower?
Yes, yes and yes, unless you can dispute it with FACTS, SSS, instead of your usual vitriol.
No, No, and No.

Schiff's comments about the phone call were exaggerated intentionally and would be taken by anyone reasonable as an attempt at parody (using gangster language). Schiff may not be a very good comic, but it was pretty clear that wasn't intended to be a verbatim depiction of the call. It's amazing how you are always willing to dismiss Trump's indefensible comments as jokes but hold Schiff's feet to the fire.

As for evidence of collusion, it's there. It's been brought out over and over again about the Trump team's attempts to set up back channel communications with the Russians and even Trump publicly making comments about Wikileaks, and the evidence of Russian tampering is very evident. You are confusing evidence with proof to whatever legal standard is required in a particular case. Whether there is or is not sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction or a successful impeachment is a matter of opinion about which people may differ. But there's no question the evidence is there. This is only about the 1,000th time on this Bored you've displayed a convenient ignorance of the meaning of legal terms.

As far as Schiff's comments about the whistleblower, it's more a matter of being unclear what his statement of "not spoken directly" with the whistleblower. This FactCheck sums it up:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schif ... r-contact/

I eagerly await the day you try to defend all the lies that come from Trump and his chorus of enablers. They number in the thousands by now.
No one who gives Barr a pass for deliberately deceiving the American people about the contents of the Mueller Report gets to complain about Rep. Schiff's presentation of the publicly released transcript. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#160 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:29 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: 1. The actual transcript of the phone call blew Schiff right out of the water. He thought he could get away with it. Is your TDS so bad you can't see that? It wasn't even an accurate parody.
You have no idea what parody is. By its very nature, it's not accurate. Weird Al Yankovic does not sing covers of famous songs. He changes the lyrics for comic effect.

Schiff never claimed he was giving an accurate rendition of what was said. He prefaced his remarks by saying: "It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates." What he says is full of deliberate exaggeration as when he has Trump say: "And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good." Then he finishes by saying: "This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office."

Only someone as bereft of common sense and full of the Trump Koolaid as you and your fellow enablers would think that Schiff was attempting was an accurate rendition of the transcript (which by the way no one in public has ever actually heard yet). The crime is pretty clear, using the power of the Presidency to extort favors from a foreign country for personal gain. And with each witness it's becoming increasingly clear. Trump has no defense, so he and his followers rely on attacking Schiff, attacking the process (which was put into effect by the Republicans in 2015), and even attacking the patriotism of a decorated war veteran.
Gimmee a break. I am not even going to even address your stupid vitriol. I don't need you to define things for me. Calm the hell down. Get help.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#161 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:45 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Did Schiff lie about the contents and tone of the phone call? Did he lie about having evidence of collusion? Did he lie about contact with the whistleblower?
Yes, yes and yes, unless you can dispute it with FACTS, SSS, instead of your usual vitriol.
No, No, and No.

Schiff's comments about the phone call were exaggerated intentionally and would be taken by anyone reasonable as an attempt at parody (using gangster language). Schiff may not be a very good comic, but it was pretty clear that wasn't intended to be a verbatim depiction of the call. It's amazing how you are always willing to dismiss Trump's indefensible comments as jokes but hold Schiff's feet to the fire.

As for evidence of collusion, it's there. It's been brought out over and over again about the Trump team's attempts to set up back channel communications with the Russians and even Trump publicly making comments about Wikileaks, and the evidence of Russian tampering is very evident. You are confusing evidence with proof to whatever legal standard is required in a particular case. Whether there is or is not sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction or a successful impeachment is a matter of opinion about which people may differ. But there's no question the evidence is there. This is only about the 1,000th time on this Bored you've displayed a convenient ignorance of the meaning of legal terms.

As far as Schiff's comments about the whistleblower, it's more a matter of being unclear what his statement of "not spoken directly" with the whistleblower. This FactCheck sums it up:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schif ... r-contact/

I eagerly await the day you try to defend all the lies that come from Trump and his chorus of enablers. They number in the thousands by now.
No one who gives Barr a pass for deliberately deceiving the American people about the contents of the Mueller Report gets to complain about Rep. Schiff's presentation of the publicly released transcript. --Bob
1. Barr gave an accurate summary of the report and then released it in full, which he didn't have to do.
2. Schiff's rant was out of line, uncalled for and directed at the uninformed and hopelessly in hate with trump crowd. He did so, apparently, before the transcript of the actual call was released, and most of the 'parody' was based on things that never happened and were never said. It was a totally scripted slander, which never would have been tolerated had it been directed at someone like Obama. Schiff is a clown.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18811
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: With a name like Boris

#162 Post by Bob78164 » Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:04 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:1. Barr gave an accurate summary of the report . . . .
If you believe that, then you haven't read the Report. It was pure, unadulterated spin that was flatly false in a number of material particulars, particularly when he claimed that Mueller exonerated Donny when in fact Mueller did no such thing. Barr was trying to set the narrative during the two weeks or so before the American public got access to the Report, and he lied to do so. You are evidence that he largely succeeded.

And contrary to what you said before (not that facts have ever made much difference to you), when Rep. Schiff characterized the transcript as a mob shakedown, it was already available to the public. He wasn't trying to get away with anything. So what you're really pissed off about is that Rep. Schiff was able to illustrate for the public in a way it can understand exactly what was going on in that phone call. And the eyewitness testimony is backing up everything Rep. Schiff claimed was going on.

So do you agree with the 80% of the American people who believe that it's wrong for politicians to use their official powers to seek help from foreign governments to attack domestic political opponents? Or are you in the minority that's willing to give Donny a pass on this as well? --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17020
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: With a name like Boris

#163 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:45 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: I am not even going to even address your stupid vitriol. I don't need you to define things for me. Calm the hell down. Get help.
This is your usual response when you get confronted on the facts and you run out of canned answers and wiggle room. And I'm not the one who gets upset. You're the one tossing obscenities at me on occasion. But that's the usual Trump deflection technique. Accuse your adversaries of doing exactly what you've done and then deny you've ever done it.
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17020
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: With a name like Boris

#164 Post by silverscreenselect » Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:05 pm

Pelosi's resolution is out, which should (but didn't) end Republican complaints about "fairness."

Hearings will be open. First, Schiff and Devin Nunes (ranking Republican) will have 45 minutes apiece to question witnesses, although either may yield part of their time. My guess is that they will yield the bulk of their time to their attorneys. Then it proceeds five minutes per member as we've seen in other hearings. The Republicans may call and subpoena their own witnesses and documents. Republicans must submit their witness requests in writing, with justification, and Schiff will act on them. If Schiff turns it down, the Republicans can ask for a full committee vote. The matter will then go to the Judiciary Committee for a formal recommendation on impeachment and Republicans will again have the right to call witnesses and subpoena documents. Trump and his lawyers will be permitted to participate in the Judiciary Committee proceedings. The resolution also authorizes the release of the transcripts of the hearings to date with appropriate security redactions.

The vote should take place Thursday. This will be an unwelcome trick for Trump and his Congressional enablers who have been complaining about an unfair process, but a welcome treat for the American public that wants to hear the truth.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... n-n1073456
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

wbtravis007
Posts: 734
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:15 pm
Location: Skipperville, Tx.

Re: With a name like Boris

#165 Post by wbtravis007 » Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:49 am

flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
No, No, and No.

Schiff's comments about the phone call were exaggerated intentionally and would be taken by anyone reasonable as an attempt at parody (using gangster language). Schiff may not be a very good comic, but it was pretty clear that wasn't intended to be a verbatim depiction of the call. It's amazing how you are always willing to dismiss Trump's indefensible comments as jokes but hold Schiff's feet to the fire.

As for evidence of collusion, it's there. It's been brought out over and over again about the Trump team's attempts to set up back channel communications with the Russians and even Trump publicly making comments about Wikileaks, and the evidence of Russian tampering is very evident. You are confusing evidence with proof to whatever legal standard is required in a particular case. Whether there is or is not sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction or a successful impeachment is a matter of opinion about which people may differ. But there's no question the evidence is there. This is only about the 1,000th time on this Bored you've displayed a convenient ignorance of the meaning of legal terms.

As far as Schiff's comments about the whistleblower, it's more a matter of being unclear what his statement of "not spoken directly" with the whistleblower. This FactCheck sums it up:

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schif ... r-contact/

I eagerly await the day you try to defend all the lies that come from Trump and his chorus of enablers. They number in the thousands by now.
No one who gives Barr a pass for deliberately deceiving the American people about the contents of the Mueller Report gets to complain about Rep. Schiff's presentation of the publicly released transcript. --Bob
1. Barr gave an accurate summary of the report and then released it in full, which he didn't have to do.
2. Schiff's rant was out of line, uncalled for and directed at the uninformed and hopelessly in hate with trump crowd. He did so, apparently, before the transcript of the actual call was released, and most of the 'parody' was based on things that never happened and were never said. It was a totally scripted slander, which never would have been tolerated had it been directed at someone like Obama. Schiff is a clown.
Apparently?

ICM!

On a related point, watch and introspect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWiFpxxWFlQ

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#166 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:22 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: I am not even going to even address your stupid vitriol. I don't need you to define things for me. Calm the hell down. Get help.
This is your usual response when you get confronted on the facts and you run out of canned answers and wiggle room. And I'm not the one who gets upset. You're the one tossing obscenities at me on occasion. But that's the usual Trump deflection technique. Accuse your adversaries of doing exactly what you've done and then deny you've ever done it.
Read and really concentrate and try to absorb and comprehend the last few posts I made to you on the transgender thread.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#167 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:03 pm

Don't bother to read these. They are already doubly discredited because they are posted by me and are undoubtedly part of the right wing noise machine.
I only post them so I can get trolled by SSS, who will point out the above sentence and tell me something else about myself that I never knew. Hopefully something new I can add to my signature.


PS: The above is an example of sarcasm.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/an ... officials/
https://noqreport.com/2019/10/30/eric-c ... decimated/

Spoiler
It was 1:03 an Halloween when I posted this. Go to https:// placeyourbets.com to put in a wager as to how long it will take SSS to troll this post.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18811
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: With a name like Boris

#168 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:09 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Don't bother to read these. They are already doubly discredited because they are posted by me and are undoubtedly part of the right wing noise machine.
I only post them so I can get trolled by SSS, who will point out the above sentence and tell me something else about myself that I never knew. Hopefully something new I can add to my signature.


PS: The above is an example of sarcasm.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/an ... officials/
https://noqreport.com/2019/10/30/eric-c ... decimated/

Spoiler
It was 1:03 an Halloween when I posted this. Go to https:// placeyourbets.com to put in a wager as to how long it will take SSS to troll this post.
If your best response to "You committed a murder" is "Who told you?" rather than "No I didn't," you really don't have much of a case. The whistleblower's motives are utterly irrelevant at this point because every material point of the disclosure has been confirmed, much of it by the altered transcript Donny himself released. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
flockofseagulls104
Posts: 5164
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: With a name like Boris

#169 Post by flockofseagulls104 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:21 pm

Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:Don't bother to read these. They are already doubly discredited because they are posted by me and are undoubtedly part of the right wing noise machine.
I only post them so I can get trolled by SSS, who will point out the above sentence and tell me something else about myself that I never knew. Hopefully something new I can add to my signature.


PS: The above is an example of sarcasm.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/30/an ... officials/
https://noqreport.com/2019/10/30/eric-c ... decimated/

Spoiler
It was 1:03 an Halloween when I posted this. Go to https:// placeyourbets.com to put in a wager as to how long it will take SSS to troll this post.
If your best response to "You committed a murder" is "Who told you?" rather than "No I didn't," you really don't have much of a case. The whistleblower's motives are utterly irrelevant at this point because every material point of the disclosure has been confirmed, much of it by the altered transcript Donny himself released. --Bob
I told you not to read them.
My best response is: Question: "To impeach a President, he needs to have committed a high crime or misdemeanor. What is his crime?" The answer: "Give us more time, we'll manufacture one."

He didn't commit a murder and he has committed no crime, except for winning the election instead of hillary.
Your friendly neighborhood racist. On the waiting list to be a nazi. Designated an honorary 'snowflake'. Trolled by the very best, as well as by BJ. Always typical, unlike others.., Fulminator, Hopelessly in the tank for trump... inappropriate... Flocking himself... Probably a tucking sexist, too... All thought comes from the right wing noise machine(TM)... A clear and present threat to The Future Of Our Democracy.. Doesn't understand anything... Made the trump apologist and enabler playoffs

User avatar
silverscreenselect
Posts: 17020
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: With a name like Boris

#170 Post by silverscreenselect » Thu Oct 31, 2019 2:46 pm

flockofseagulls104 wrote: He didn't commit a murder and he has committed no crime, except for winning the election instead of hillary.
What part of trying to influence a foreign government for personal political gain don't you understand?

As far as the "dirt" on the whistleblower, it's not surprising that he's not in the tank for Trump. Instead, he appears to be a career civil servant who, like almost 40% of the country, is a Democrat.

And, even if you ascribe bad motives to him, the investigation so far has proved just about everything he claimed. Trump isn't being impeached based on what the whistleblower said. He's being impeached based on what he did, as numerous other witnesses and his own admissions have documented.

You just can't get the concept that there's anything wrong for the President of the United States to establish a foreign policy that is ties Congressionally approved aid to a foreign country to that country doing him personal political favors. Do you honestly think that Republicans would be that accepting if Barack Obama had done something like this?
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: With a name like Boris

#171 Post by BackInTex » Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:32 pm

silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: He didn't commit a murder and he has committed no crime, except for winning the election instead of hillary.
What part of trying to influence a foreign government for personal political gain don't you understand?

As far as the "dirt" on the whistleblower, it's not surprising that he's not in the tank for Trump. Instead, he appears to be a career civil servant who, like almost 40% of the country, is a Democrat.

And, even if you ascribe bad motives to him, the investigation so far has proved just about everything he claimed. Trump isn't being impeached based on what the whistleblower said. He's being impeached based on what he did, as numerous other witnesses and his own admissions have documented.

You just can't get the concept that there's anything wrong for the President of the United States to establish a foreign policy that is ties Congressionally approved aid to a foreign country to that country doing him personal political favors. Do you honestly think that Republicans would be that accepting if Barack Obama had done something like this?
The Democrats are accepting of Biden for doing exactly that. Biden bragged about it. I'm not sure what you hear when you see Biden bragging about it, but it is about as quid pro quo as it gets.

However, Trump did not do that. Nothing in the transcript indicates that. There was never a "you better.. or we won't". The aid has been given to the Ukraine. Ukraine has not, as far was we know, provided any such information Trump requested on the Biden deal.

Prove me wrong.
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18811
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: With a name like Boris

#172 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:41 pm

BackInTex wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote: He didn't commit a murder and he has committed no crime, except for winning the election instead of hillary.
What part of trying to influence a foreign government for personal political gain don't you understand?

As far as the "dirt" on the whistleblower, it's not surprising that he's not in the tank for Trump. Instead, he appears to be a career civil servant who, like almost 40% of the country, is a Democrat.

And, even if you ascribe bad motives to him, the investigation so far has proved just about everything he claimed. Trump isn't being impeached based on what the whistleblower said. He's being impeached based on what he did, as numerous other witnesses and his own admissions have documented.

You just can't get the concept that there's anything wrong for the President of the United States to establish a foreign policy that is ties Congressionally approved aid to a foreign country to that country doing him personal political favors. Do you honestly think that Republicans would be that accepting if Barack Obama had done something like this?
The Democrats are accepting of Biden for doing exactly that. Biden bragged about it. I'm not sure what you hear when you see Biden bragging about it, but it is about as quid pro quo as it gets.

However, Trump did not do that. Nothing in the transcript indicates that. There was never a "you better.. or we won't". The aid has been given to the Ukraine. Ukraine has not, as far was we know, provided any such information Trump requested on the Biden deal.

Prove me wrong.
You clearly haven't been keeping up with reporting on the impeachment investigation. The transcript was altered to remove those references, including Donny's specific reference to Burisma. We know that from the guy who was on the call, was taking notes, and who tried unsuccessfully to get the altered transcript corrected.

I'm guessing he'll show up to testify under oath on your TV screen soon enough. Well, maybe not your TV screen. But he'll be on the TV screens of those who actually want to know what happened.

And the Biden claims always have been, and always will be, complete bullshit. What personal domestic political advantage do you claim he was trying to get by getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (at the direction of President Obama and in cooperation with our allies in the European Union) because HE WASN'T TOUGH ENOUGH on corruption? No one outside the echo chamber actually believes this bullshit because it's not true, and that won't change no matter how often you try to amplify it. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
BackInTex
Posts: 10832
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: In Texas of course!

Re: With a name like Boris

#173 Post by BackInTex » Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:25 pm

Bob78164 wrote:You clearly haven't been keeping up with reporting on the impeachment investigation. The transcript was altered to remove those references, including Donny's specific reference to Burisma. We know that from the guy who was on the call, was taking notes, and who tried unsuccessfully to get the altered transcript corrected.
Are you talking about Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman? Yes, he said some things were left out, including the OH MY GOSH! reference to Burisma! What is illegal or wrong about referencing the company you are discussing in a conversation?

Just so those who may be interested in the facts, all the facts, are reading this, what you don't say is that even including the few items that Vindman states were excluded, the overall essence of the phone call does not change. No quid pro quo.
Bob78164 wrote:I'm guessing he'll show up to testify under oath on your TV screen soon enough. Well, maybe not your TV screen. But he'll be on the TV screens of those who actually want to know what happened.
You'd be wrong. He won't testify except maybe under force, and if so, will plead the fifth. The whistle blower does not, and will not, answer questions that will be asked by those seeking the truth. Questions such as "What did Adam Schiff know and when did he know it?", "Were you contacted in any way by Schiff, someone on his staff, or anyone on the Intelligence Committee prior to you filing the Whistle Blower complaint?", and "Did you have any assistance in writing your report, and if so, from whom?"

All questions he will not answer.


Bob78164 wrote:And the Biden claims always have been, and always will be, complete bullshit. What personal domestic political advantage do you claim he was trying to get by getting a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (at the direction of President Obama and in cooperation with our allies in the European Union) because HE WASN'T TOUGH ENOUGH on corruption? No one outside the echo chamber actually believes this bullshit because it's not true, and that won't change no matter how often you try to amplify it. --Bob
Then why the worry over Trump asking the Ukraine to help investigate?
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.

User avatar
Bob78164
Bored Moderator
Posts: 18811
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Location: By the phone

Re: With a name like Boris

#174 Post by Bob78164 » Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:50 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:You clearly haven't been keeping up with reporting on the impeachment investigation. The transcript was altered to remove those references, including Donny's specific reference to Burisma. We know that from the guy who was on the call, was taking notes, and who tried unsuccessfully to get the altered transcript corrected.
Are you talking about Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman? Yes, he said some things were left out, including the OH MY GOSH! reference to Burisma! What is illegal or wrong about referencing the company you are discussing in a conversation?

Just so those who may be interested in the facts, all the facts, are reading this, what you don't say is that even including the few items that Vindman states were excluded, the overall essence of the phone call does not change. No quid pro quo.
Bob78164 wrote:I'm guessing he'll show up to testify under oath on your TV screen soon enough. Well, maybe not your TV screen. But he'll be on the TV screens of those who actually want to know what happened.
You'd be wrong. He won't testify except maybe under force, and if so, will plead the fifth. The whistle blower does not, and will not, answer questions that will be asked by those seeking the truth. Questions such as "What did Adam Schiff know and when did he know it?", "Were you contacted in any way by Schiff, someone on his staff, or anyone on the Intelligence Committee prior to you filing the Whistle Blower complaint?", and "Did you have any assistance in writing your report, and if so, from whom?"

All questions he will not answer.
None of which has a damn thing to do with whether Donny actually abused the power of his office to subvert U.S. foreign policy in an effort to create dirt against a domestic political opponent. Which has now been proven by his own altered transcript and multiple eyewitnesses.

It's like attacking the messenger when the proof is on videotape. It doesn't matter how you found out. The facts are the facts. When the accusation is, "You shot someone," a response consisting of "Who told you?" is pretty damn weak. And the American people understand that. Even if you refuse to.

Just as you refuse to understand that Donny's abuse of power would have been categorically wrong even if there were something to find. There wasn't, but that doesn't matter. Witness tampering and obstruction of justice are illegal even if you're innocent of the crime being investigated, and this is no different. --Bob
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
jarnon
Posts: 4979
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Location: Merion, Pa.

Re: With a name like Boris

#175 Post by jarnon » Thu Oct 31, 2019 6:50 pm

BackInTex wrote:
Bob78164 wrote:No one outside the echo chamber actually believes this bullshit because it's not true, and that won't change no matter how often you try to amplify it. --Bob
Then why the worry over Trump asking the Ukraine to help investigate?
Because innocent people shouldn't be investigated for political reasons. That's what Trump keeps claiming that Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, etc. did to him, and if Horowitz and Durham find malfeasance, there will be hell to pay. If there are legitimate grounds to investigate Biden and other Democrats, the people making the charges like Giuliani should testify.

Post Reply